[Fedora-packaging] meta-package guideline needed ?

seth vidal skvidal at fedoraproject.org
Mon Jan 12 14:33:32 UTC 2009

On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 15:20 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Lun 12 janvier 2009 15:02, Jonathan Underwood a écrit :
> > Also, using comps groups for the metapackage use case I outlined would
> > lead to many more compsgroups, themselves much smaller than the
> > presently existing comps groups.
> If you look at the comps groups of past releases, you'll see that
> creating groups with half a dozen packages inside has been done
> before, and was a common case when comps was introduced. The
> distribution has massively grown without our comps layout following,
> probably because no one was perceived to be in chargo of comps those
> past years.
> > Perhaps we need another concept - collections and groups, where
> > collections is roughly what we currently call comps groups (large
> > package sets with a big overall functionality payload like a desktop
> > environment etc) and comps groups which are primarily for pulling in a
> > series of subpackages.
> There was supposed to be a session on comps future at FUDCON, I hope
> its results will be posted on the list soon.

We did have a productive, though a little bizarre, meeting on saturday.
I'll see what I can write up briefly and one of the others can add to

Here's a version of it:

0. There's some code we need before we can do this. So don't go changing
anything right away.
1. comps groups will get rid of the 'types' of pkgs - a group being in a
package means it is in the group - so no more optional/mandatory/default
2. conditionals are going away entirely.
3. we're going to do something fairly radical to make group persistence
behave as more people expect it. We're going to build metapkgs on the
fly at the yum layer and install them. There's a a lot more to how we're
going to do it but this is what was discussed at the meeting.

I'll post more once I get through the rest of my email.


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list